Appeal No. 2000-1003
Application No. 08/631,465
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1254-56, 195 USPQ 430, 432-34 (CCPA 1977).
However, we are persuaded by the appellants’ argument that
the references under consideration “do not disclose or suggest
the use of one or more planes of optical energy for ionizing
target particles, as set forth in claims 23-25, 27, 29, and 30”
(brief, page 15). While the Hoshino, Ito and Bowen references
disclose the use of lasers in apparatuses and methods for film
deposition, the examiner has failed to carry his initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
somehow modifying the Mosely apparatus in such a manner as to
result in one or more ionizers for creating a plane of optical
energy in accordance with the requirements of independent claims
23, 27 and 29. It is here appropriate to emphasize that the
totality of the examiner’s obviousness conclusion constitutes the
unembellished statement “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
have utilized a laser to ionize as taught by Hoshino and Ito and
to have utilized mirrors to reflect a laser as taught by Bowen
. . . because it is desired to enhance film deposition” (answer,
page 7). This statement does not even contain a mention of
Mosely’s apparatus much less an explanation of specifically how
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007